A few thoughts/gripes about recent game modern game design.

[Fenris-77]

It's even more important withe experienced players to communicate the intentions clearly, because they'll be coming in with assumptions from games they played before. Your game will only appear well designed if your assumptions about their background are correct.

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Your interpretation here seems to rest pretty heavily on the inability of anyone to think for themselves. I'm not suggesting that stating intentions is bad, but that's one thing and while your seeming expectations are something else.

I also think that your statement about the influence of D&D on modern game design probably needs to be backed up rather than simply stated as if whatever you mean by that is obvious to everyone. I don't think it's as universally true as it seems you are arguing it to be, but more explanation would probably help. Lots of games and designers escape the gravity of D&D pretty well, IMO anyway, which seems to work against your thesis and I think the burden is on you to explain the difference.

 

[ffilz]

I have a copy of Runequest 1e from here

RuneQuest 1st Edition - Chaosium | RuneQuest Classic | DriveThruRPG.com

RuneQuest 1st Edition - In July of 1978, the Origins Game Fair was held in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Over 3500 people attended what was the largest g

www.drivethrurpg.com

Page 106

View attachment 57967 View attachment 57968

There several choices Mercenary, Barbarians, Nobles, and Crafts. The Craft option has three choices Thieving, Crafting, and Sage. And Crafting breaks down into Armoring, Forestry, and Maritime. Sage breaks down into Alchemy and Sage Craft.

For example Mercernary

View attachment 57969
The rest of each entry is rolling up some details and determining what skill increases you get.

View attachment 57970

I have a copy of Runequest 1e from here

RuneQuest 1st Edition - Chaosium | RuneQuest Classic | DriveThruRPG.com

RuneQuest 1st Edition - In July of 1978, the Origins Game Fair was held in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Over 3500 people attended what was the largest g

www.drivethrurpg.com

Page 106

There several choices Mercenary, Barbarians, Nobles, and Crafts. The Craft option has three choices Thieving, Crafting, and Sage. And Crafting breaks down into Armoring, Forestry, and Maritime. Sage breaks down into Alchemy and Sage Craft.

For example Mercernary

The rest of each entry is rolling up some details and determining what skill increases you get.

Thanks for sharing. I’ve been dinged for sharing too much in my comparison document so I was going to have to spend time summarizing…

 

[robertsconley]

Lots of games and designers escape the gravity of D&D pretty well, IMO anyway, which seems to work against your thesis and I think the burden is on you to explain the difference.

We don't have to guess, we have some good sources of data.

From Drive-Thru RPG
The number of Core Rulebooks is 16,139

DriveThruRPG.com - Core Rulebooks - The Largest RPG Download Store!

Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.

www.drivethrurpg.com

The number of core rulebooks that are Dungeons & Dragons 1,804

DriveThruRPG.com - Core Rulebooks | Dungeons & Dragons - The Largest RPG Download Store!

Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.

www.drivethrurpg.com

Which means there are at least 14,335 core rulebooks available that are not Dungeons & Dragons.

Doesn't seem to be an issue.

We can also dig further in by looking at the Metal levels which shows sales popularity.

DriveThruRPG.com

www.drivethrurpg.com

By my count, there are 169 Admantine products with the highest level of sales. Looks to be around 25 of them are D&D related. Now to be fair each of DriveThru's stores are counted separately so over on the Dm's Guild there are another 118 adamantine level products all D&D related. So out of 287 Adamantine level products 143 are D&D related. Just under half. Which lines up with the popularity of D&D.

Dungeon Masters Guild

www.dmsguild.com

However that seemly has zero effect on designers' willingness to make non-D&D RPGs as the 14,335 corebooks that are not D&D attests.

 

[robertsconley]

Thanks for sharing. I’ve been dinged for sharing too much in my comparison document so I was going to have to spend time summarizing…

Also since the PDF is only $10 it is easy enough for those interested to check it out.

 

[ffilz]

Also since the PDF is only $10 it is easy enough for those interested to check it out.

Yes. And the bummer is my comparison was actually designed to sell copies of RQ1. I explicitly didn’t give enough details that someone could mark up their copy of RQ2 and use it to play RQ1. Not even close…. But it was too much…

 

[Fenris-77]

We don't have to guess, we have some good sources of data.

From Drive-Thru RPG
The number of Core Rulebooks is 16,139

View attachment 57972

DriveThruRPG.com - Core Rulebooks - The Largest RPG Download Store!

Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.

www.drivethrurpg.com

The number of core rulebooks that are Dungeons & Dragons 1,804
View attachment 57973

DriveThruRPG.com - Core Rulebooks | Dungeons & Dragons - The Largest RPG Download Store!

Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.

www.drivethrurpg.com

Which means there are at least 14,335 core rulebooks available that are not Dungeons & Dragons.

Doesn't seem to be an issue.

We can also dig further in by looking at the Metal levels which shows sales popularity.

DriveThruRPG.com

www.drivethrurpg.com

By my count, there are 169 Admantine products with the highest level of sales. Looks to be around 25 of them are D&D related. Now to be fair each of DriveThru's stores are counted separately so over on the Dm's Guild there are another 118 adamantine level products all D&D related. So out of 287 Adamantine level products 143 are D&D related. Just under half. Which lines up with the popularity of D&D.

However that seemly has zero effect on designer willingness to make non-D&D RPGs as the 14,335 corebook that are not D&D attests.

I'm not taking the contra here, but at least some portion of those games are probably pretty heavily influenced by D&D in one way or another. But I don't find it credible that you could use the word 'most' there in that same regard.

 

[robertsconley]

I'm not taking the contra here, but at least some portion of those games are probably pretty heavily influenced by D&D in one way or another. But I don't find it credible that you could use the word 'most' there in that same regard.

Sure where would you put Dungeon World and The Dungeon Fantasy RPG or heck even Savage World Pathfinder and Fantasy Age?

So I looked up the number of corebooks that were fantasy, 7,440.

DriveThruRPG.com - Fantasy | Core Rulebooks - The Largest RPG Download Store!

Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.

www.drivethrurpg.com

So even if one considers all fantasy RPGs derived from D&D that still a lot of non-D&D systems out there.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure where would you put Dungeon World and The Dungeon Fantasy RPG or heck even Savage World Pathfinder and Fantasy Age?

So I looked up the number of corebooks that were fantasy, 7,440.

DriveThruRPG.com - Fantasy | Core Rulebooks - The Largest RPG Download Store!

Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.

www.drivethrurpg.com

View attachment 57976

Hah. I wasn't really tempted to actually take that analytic task on. It seems like a lot of work to prove something that seems pretty self evident on the surface.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Sure where would you put Dungeon World and The Dungeon Fantasy RPG or heck even Savage World Pathfinder and Fantasy Age?

So I looked up the number of corebooks that were fantasy, 7,440.

DriveThruRPG.com - Fantasy | Core Rulebooks - The Largest RPG Download Store!

Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.

www.drivethrurpg.com

So even if one considers all fantasy RPGs derived from D&D that still a lot of non-D&D systems out there.


View attachment 57976

All RPG's are derived from Diplomacy PBM campaigns. No exceptions.

 

[SJB]

Game design includes writing as well as coming up with mechanics.

Robin Laws is a great example of communicating through writing very clearly what the intent was behind the mechanics choices. It would be nice if he weren't an exception, and rather just one of many.

Hero* is a moving train wreck of evolving designer explanations.

Having said that, the first edition was 2000. What are we taking as the base for “modern game design”?

 

[Telok]

I wonder. On perceived incompetence. You could take a BRP character with 45% lockpicking and double the number, but then have a half & fifth rating like "90% / 45% / 09%" and label thrm on the character sheet as "normal/heroic/epic". Then in the skill description & GMing bit say poor quality locks, better tools, and more time tack on +20%. That might better communicate a desired level of competence in a particular version.

Or if a game's number/dice systems weren't amenable to that sort of thing you'd just need a bunch of examples of what the system is supposed to run or look like. Decent examples and pictures help so much with this stuff.

 

[Bunch]

Interestingly the Thieves Guild game starts thieves off with D&D like percentages. Maybe a bit higher. But definitely not in that 70% sweet spot.

Doesn't it also assume your not a competent thief yet and trying to get good enough to join a guild? Or was that just your campaign?

 

[migo]

That seems pretty counter-intuitive. Your interpretation here seems to rest pretty heavily on the inability of anyone to think for themselves. I'm not suggesting that stating intentions is bad, but that's one thing and while your seeming expectations are something else.

No, it's based on if I'm going to have to redesign half the system anyway, why pay someone else?

Which means there are at least 14,335 core rulebooks available that are not Dungeons & Dragons.

After you account for all the rulebooks that take for granted D&D mechanics and are more D&D than anything else?

 

[Fenris-77]

No, it's based on if I'm going to have to redesign half the system anyway, why pay someone else?


After you account for all the rulebooks that take for granted D&D mechanics and are more D&D than anything else?

So, just to be clear, you feel like you have to redesign half of most systems?

As for the second point, feel free to be more specific or there's not much to talk about. I don't think your contention is either obvious or accurate but you'd need to actually make an argument there instead of a bald statement to actually take it anywhere.

 

[migo]

The game should have even starting characters succeeding more than they are failing. Instead of having probabilities of success starting at 15-20%, they should be starting comfortably over 50%. Even a 70% rating can still have you with a string of fails for a while. The mechanics shouldn't be trying to make you shit.

If there's some particular reason to have characters be shit, for what is a niche, and not mainstream, preference, that should be communicated clearly, so that the majority of players, who aren't interested in it, know to pass on it.

 

[ffilz]

Doesn't it also assume your not a competent thief yet and trying to get good enough to join a guild? Or was that just your campaign?

That was partly my campaign but clearly and option since they spelled out the costs and requirements to join.

 

[robertsconley]

After you account for all the rulebooks that take for granted D&D mechanics and are more D&D than anything else?

Waiting to see your data.

 

[Fenris-77]

The game should have even starting characters succeeding more than they are failing. Instead of having probabilities of success starting at 15-20%, they should be starting comfortably over 50%. Even a 70% rating can still have you with a string of fails for a while. The mechanics shouldn't be trying to make you shit.

If there's some particular reason to have characters be shit, for what is a niche, and not mainstream, preference, that should be communicated clearly, so that the majority of players, who aren't interested in it, know to pass on it.

Could you explain to me how this has anything to do with game design rather than your specific tastes? Games commonly referred to as zero to hero are quite popular and have been for many many years. They don't generally begin with characters that meet your specifications though. You're calling that bad game design, which seems idiosyncratic at best, or toweringly arrogant at worst.

 

[migo]

It's not just my specific tastes. Liking playing a character that sucks is peculiar. Wanting to experience success more than failure is normal and standard.

Games commonly referred to as zero to hero are quite popular and have been for many many years.

And may have been far more popular had they not been so whiffy at the start. You'll have people who try the game, think it sucks, and then never come back to it. Competent heroes should be the default. That's what most people want to play.

 

[migo]

Waiting to see your data.

You might think you're being clever, but your data as lazily as you collected it is useless.

 

[Fenris-77]

It's not just my specific tastes. Liking playing a character that sucks is peculiar. Wanting to experience success more than failure is normal and standard.



And may have been far more popular had they not been so whiffy at the start. You'll have people who try the game, think it sucks, and then never come back to it. Competent heroes should be the default. That's what most people want to play.

May have been far more popular than D&D?! The UR zero to hero game?! You'll have to do better than that.

And yeah, it really is your specific tastes. Those games also have lots of success in them, certainly enough to keep people coming back for more for years and years. I'm waiting for you to explain how this all works frankly. Perhaps you haven't been clear about what 'sucks' means, IDK. But trashing zero to hero games as 'bad' seems like a strange thing to do.

 

[Necrozius]

Zero to hero can be a nice way to gradually introduce a new player to the intricacies of a system.

Low level characters have fewer "build" options compared with more experienced ones. You don' t want to overwhelm new players with too many options right away.

That doesn't stop more experienced players from starting at a higher level, of course.

Hopefully a DM in such a game doesn't pummel fresh new characters with too many high DC checks of course. Ease them in.

 

[robertsconley]

You might think you're being clever, but your data as lazily as you collected it is useless.

Ad Hominem attacks are not going to win the debate. You can use other data sources. Or go onto DriveThruRPG and look the individual categories to refute my point that D&D dominance doesn't prevent designers in the RPG industry from releasing a large number of systems that are not D&D related. That the number of alternatives overwhelm the number of D&D related RPGs.

Or you can take the considerably easier route of looking at the two top metal levels of DriveThru can offer your own opinion on the balance of D&D-related core systems versus non-D&D-related core systems.

 

[ffilz]

May have been far more popular than D&D?! The UR zero to hero game?! You'll have to do better than that.

And yeah, it really is your specific tastes. Those games also have lots of success in them, certainly enough to keep people coming back for more for years and years. I'm waiting for you to explain how this all works frankly. Perhaps you haven't been clear about what 'sucks' means, IDK. But trashing zero to hero games as 'bad' seems like a strange thing to do.

We can't win this game. Zero to hero means "starts off with 70% chance of success" (with what, I'm not sure).

I will offer that the PCs in my RQ campaign, some of which started with a measly 35% in their weapon, have won north of 90% of the fights they've been in. They've never had a TPK. They have had one PC resurrected 2 or 3 times, and several other PCs die. They have a few times executed a strategic advance to the rear. I'd call that a pretty damn good success rate. As to other skills, sure, they have failed a bunch, and they've missed a few treasures, but I don't hear complaints. Of course I AM using the previous experience. But it still leaves most skills in the 5-40% range, and not all characters wind up with 70% or even 50% in their combat skills. Maybe some characters don't even have any skills above 50%.

The OD&D play by post game, I joined after a TPK. That was the only TPK in the campaign. I lost my first PC in the first or second combat, and then my elf survived the rest of the campaign. We won almost all the combats we entered.

That's what zero to hero gaming can look like.

 

[Fenris-77]

Part of the problem is that character success isn't modelled solely by statistical analysis of the mechanics.

 

[migo]

May have been far more popular than D&D?! The UR zero to hero game?! You'll have to do better than that.

And yeah, it really is your specific tastes. Those games also have lots of success in them, certainly enough to keep people coming back for more for years and years. I'm waiting for you to explain how this all works frankly. Perhaps you haven't been clear about what 'sucks' means, IDK. But trashing zero to hero games as 'bad' seems like a strange thing to do.

RPGs aren't popular compared to really any other geek hobby. Vidya is more popular. Even Vidya RPGs are more popular. Board games are more popular. Card games are more popular. Tabletop wargaming that RPGs sprung from look to be more popular. It's the least popular geek hobby. And geeks from other hobbies who have tried it have decided they don't like it and gone back.

Ad Hominem attacks are not going to win the debate. You can use other data sources. Or go onto DriveThruRPG and look the individual categories to refute my point that D&D dominance doesn't prevent designers in the RPG industry from releasing a large number of systems that are not D&D related. That the number of alternatives overwhelm the number of D&D related RPGs.

Or you can take the considerably easier route of looking at the two top metal levels of DriveThru can offer your own opinion on the balance of D&D-related core systems versus non-D&D-related core systems.

It's not ad hominem. You didn't do any work at all. To see what games aren't influenced by D&D, and to what degree, you need to actually look at the rules.

We can't win this game. Zero to hero means "starts off with 70% chance of success" (with what, I'm not sure).

I will offer that the PCs in my RQ campaign, some of which started with a measly 35% in their weapon, have won north of 90% of the fights they've been in. They've never had a TPK. They have had one PC resurrected 2 or 3 times, and several other PCs die. They have a few times executed a strategic advance to the rear. I'd call that a pretty damn good success rate. As to other skills, sure, they have failed a bunch, and they've missed a few treasures, but I don't hear complaints. Of course I AM using the previous experience. But it still leaves most skills in the 5-40% range, and not all characters wind up with 70% or even 50% in their combat skills. Maybe some characters don't even have any skills above 50%.

The OD&D play by post game, I joined after a TPK. That was the only TPK in the campaign. I lost my first PC in the first or second combat, and then my elf survived the rest of the campaign. We won almost all the combats we entered.

That's what zero to hero gaming can look like.

Applying combat outcomes where you have a bunch of rolls to resolve the combat, and non-combat, where a single static roll determines the result doesn't make sense. If you make five rolls to track a single enemy, then the probabilities might be appropriate. Not when one determines whether you caught the trail or not.

 

[Necrozius]

Part of the problem is that character success isn't modelled solely by statistical analysis of the mechanics.

Although it is handy when a book spells that out for you. Free League, for example, lists the probabilities of success based on the number of dice rolled which can be determined by a variety of factors beyond skill level).

edit: I meant that this kind of info is helpful to DMs when planning out challenges, especially for new characters. They can even help telegraph the challenges (eg "oof that task is gonna be hard... you're going to need help and some suitable tools").

 

[robertsconley]

It's not ad hominem. You didn't do any work at all. To see what games aren't influenced by D&D, and to what degree, you need to actually look at the rules.

Been at this for 40 years and actively involved in critiquing and reviewing RPGs for 13. I am aware of what various systems are about especially those in the metal levels. And you didn't reply to my point about offering your own review of the systems in the metal levels.

 

[Fenris-77]

RPGs aren't popular compared to really any other geek hobby. Vidya is more popular. Even Vidya RPGs are more popular. Board games are more popular. Card games are more popular. Tabletop wargaming that RPGs sprung from look to be more popular. It's the least popular geek hobby. And geeks from other hobbies who have tried it have decided they don't like it and gone back.

This has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about. Are we simply shifting the goal posts here or is there some secret way in which other non-TTRPG hobbies are related in any way to your opinions about TTRPG design? There's a glimmer of a argument in that last point, but generally speaking anecdotal evidence, especially of the vague and unsubstantiated variety, doesn't carry a lot of water.

 

[Bunch]

Can someone back this up for me? What's the basic argument that well designed systems should have a 60+% chance of success? Or that D&D is not a huge influence on most RPGs?

 

[Necrozius]

I think that most games have it that a character of average ability attempting a task of "moderate" difficulty without any extra aid, tools or contextual bonuses should hover at aroun 50-60%.

 

[Bunch]

I think that most games have it that a character of average ability attempting a task of "moderate" difficulty without any extra aid, tools or contextual bonuses should hover at aroun 50-60%.

So just looking back at White Box which is an early D&D knock off. A 1st level fighter with a +2 bonus from strength will hit an average orc on a 11 or higher. So maybe I'm missing something but the grandaddy of all of these games started with initial fighters missing an average bad guy more than 50% of the time.

 

[Necrozius]

So just looking back at White Box which is an early D&D knock off. A 1st level fighter with a +2 bonus from strength will hit an average orc on a 11 or higher. So maybe I'm missing something but the grandaddy of all of these games started with initial fighters missing an average bad guy more than 50% of the time.

Yikes. Well old school D&D was pretty well known for starting characters sucking ass, right?

I guess that what I said above applies more to modern game design, which was the subject of the thread. I guess...

 

[SmallbutVicious]

I'm quite fond of games where you fail most rolls. The idea of such a game is to try and avoid rolls. To try and think of plans such that the GM can't ask for a roll because they're self-evidently succesful. To try and avoid the danger that will force unavoidable rolls on you through clever planning. In difficult situations, to try to set things up such that you can succeed by using the few skills where you have an above 50% chance. That's the game, for me.

 

[TristramEvans]

If the intent isn't clearly communicated, it's bad design even if the design suits your tastes.

Yeah, but it's not "bad design" just because it doesn't fit your tastes and schedule.

Please accept that you can like badly designed games.

The issue is that if you want to make the claim that a game is badly designed you need to support the claim with an objective argument.

"I don't like playing characters that are not hyper competent from the first session" or "I don't have free time" are you problems, not problems with the games or problems shared universally by other gamers, as you try to imply.

 

[Sharrow]

The game should have even starting characters succeeding more than they are failing. Instead of having probabilities of success starting at 15-20%, they should be starting comfortably over 50%. Even a 70% rating can still have you with a string of fails for a while. The mechanics shouldn't be trying to make you shit.

At this point I'm wondering what games you're actually talking about, because aside from some satires, I'm not really coming up with any that fit this, except perhaps some versions of D&D with the GM making a very harsh interpretation of what thief skills actually mean, and Runequest with no prior experience. Or maybe a killer GM running Rolemaster.

 

[robertsconley]

So just looking back at White Box which is an early D&D knock off. A 1st level fighter with a +2 bonus from strength will hit an average orc on a 11 or higher. So maybe I'm missing something but the grandaddy of all of these games started with initial fighters missing an average bad guy more than 50% of the time.

Yup but you look further you will see that you can employ hirelings. Or if you read actual play accounts from back in the day groups had 8 or more players at a time.

The point of which is not OD&D or other RPGs are good or bad for how they started out characters. It meant that the authors viewed the implied setting in a certain way and wrote the system around that viewpoint. For the most part, it was pretty obvious what the situation was. Runequest in several spots mentions your starting character is 18 years old. In Basic Roleplaying the included adventures involved fighting a Bear. For as terse it as was OD&D stressed the value of teamwork and told you what the recommended party size was.

I did just fine with the below character who started out at one, yes one hit point.



So what did I do well just look at the back half. And because only had a fucking 8 charisma I had to really be on my toes to keep my two crossbowmen happy.

 

[Sharrow]

Just as well you had plenty of money...

 

[Bunch]

Yup but you look further you will see that you can employ hirelings. Or if you read actual play accounts from back in the day groups had 8 or more players at a time.

The point of which is not OD&D or other RPGs are good or bad for how they started out characters. It meant that the authors viewed the implied setting in a certain way and wrote the system around that viewpoint. For the most part, it was pretty obvious what the situation was. Runequest in several spots mentions your starting character is 18 years old. In Basic Roleplaying the included adventures involved fighting a Bear. For as terse it as was OD&D stressed the value of teamwork and told you what the recommended party size was.

I did just fine with the below character who started out at one, yes one hit point.

View attachment 57991

So what did I do well just look at the back half. And because only had a fucking 8 charisma I had to really be on my toes to keep my two crossbowmen happy.

View attachment 57992

Sure. My point was to contrast the claim that to be well designed (if I got the point correctly) a game has to have a 66+% chance of success for the PCs. OD&D certainly didn't do that out of the gate and while it's debatable if it's well designed it's designed well enough that people enjoyed it enough to create a whole genre.

 

[CRKrueger]

Part of the problem is that character success isn't modelled solely by statistical analysis of the mechanics.

That's always the problem with the RPGMathematicians among us. Their analysis is always out of context, White Room bullshit. Without being placed in a scenario, there is no way to know what PC tactics are and how those might swing things in a different way (better or worse).

RPGs aren't popular compared to really any other geek hobby. Vidya is more popular. Even Vidya RPGs are more popular. Board games are more popular. Card games are more popular. Tabletop wargaming that RPGs sprung from look to be more popular. It's the least popular geek hobby. And geeks from other hobbies who have tried it have decided they don't like it and gone back.

Pure silliness. You may as well say Masturbation is more popular than Sex.

Anything you can do by yourself at will for a period of time under your direct control (Video Games) will be more popular than one in which you have to schedule a group of people to the same time over multiple sessions (RPGs).

Anything you can do with one other person for a short period of time or set period of time (Card Games & Wargames), will be more popular than one in which you have to schedule a group of people to the same time over multiple sessions (RPGs).

Anything you can do with a group of people for a short period of time (Board Games) will be more popular than one in which you have to schedule a group of people to the same time over multiple sessions (RPGs).

Short form RPGs (one shots) or (X and out) RPGs will be more popular than a Living World Sandbox that theoretically never ends until the GM dies because it takes a greater level of Real World commitment than other forms of RPG.

You're also not either realizing or acknowledging that these activities overlap. Most RPGers I know do at least one of the other activities, if not all. Everyone plays Video Games in addition to everything else, because it's the easiest to do.

A lot of games are going to look like D&D, because D&D was the first RPG.

Does RQ have Str, Dex, Con, and Int because it was influenced by D&D, or did Stafford not want to bother replacing them with Brawn, Agility, Heartiness, and IQ?

Nearly all RPGs are going to be influenced by D&D to some degree, because the authors are aware of the game. Even those games that try very very hard NOT to be D&D, have still been influenced by it. How do you react against something if you haven't been influenced by it?

I don't know what argument that was supposed to prove, however.